what I should have said is that Flight should have been a patch for FSX.

I want MORE then FSX "patched" and im willing to pay well for it. If you want to advance, you need to do more then just gradual incraments.

I didn't read all of that, but the bits about performance really interested me! Further proof that Flight should in some respects cut out backwards compatibly. :) but maybe allowing room for some, probably FSX native, with some sort of conversion tool... Id prefer it without it, but that's because I never went wild buying thousands of pounds worth of FSX add-ons, so obviously I wouldn't be annoyed very much If there were no backwards compatibly. But since its very likely that Flight will fully support DX10 (maybe not so much DX11 though) I think we'll see plenty of things that will blow FSX and FS9 completely out of the water. Like I say... we'll see :) Jamie ♥

I understand, I was just saying that FSX was left unfinished DX10 preview and should have been fixed.Flight will not have backwards compatibility with FSX, it just does not make good business senses at all and I do have a lot of FSX add-ons myself, to me Flight will be what FSX should have been when completed and by that I mean a full working DX10 + all what Phil said should have happend including God's ray to take this example.Flight can use a lot of core (for everything) if they do it correctly, here is an old vid about it...

I didn't read all of that, but the bits about performance really interested me! Further proof that Flight should in some respects cut out backwards compatibly. :) but maybe allowing room for some, probably FSX native, with some sort of conversion tool... Id prefer it without it, but that's because I never went wild buying thousands of pounds worth of FSX add-ons, so obviously I wouldn't be annoyed very much If there were no backwards compatibly. But since its very likely that Flight will fully support DX10 (maybe not so much DX11 though) I think we'll see plenty of things that will blow FSX and FS9 completely out of the water. Like I say... we'll see :) Jamie ♥

I can throw all the FSX add on out the door and I still wouldn't lose a fraction of more than what I spent in real life flying. (go figure: I spent an average of 90 dollars an hour wet on Piper Archers and Warriors and have 340 hours. Added to it are about 80 hours of instructor fees at $30 dollars an hour. Thats $35,000 there. Add the price of head sets, flight bag, flight calculators, years of updating charts, medicals, exams, books and you will figure out what a bargain FS is. I didn't include the renters insurance that I never got but was scared of not having into the amount.

I want MORE then FSX "patched" and im willing to pay well for it. If you want to advance, you need to do more then just gradual incraments.

I understand what you want and what I want but what MS will do will probably not be everything we want.

I understand, I was just saying that FSX was left unfinished DX10 preview and should have been fixed.Flight will not have backwards compatibility with FSX, it just does not make good business senses at all and I do have a lot of FSX add-ons myself, to me Flight will be what FSX should have been when completed and by that I mean a full working DX10 + all what Phil said should have happend including God's ray to take this example.Flight can use a lot of core (for everything) if they do it correctly, here is an old vid about it...

I see what you mean, But in a way all versions have been unfinished. I want them unfinished. It gives me something to look forward to for the next version. Meanwhile I am able to really enjoy FSX. There is nothing that bothers me enough to call it a failed version in need of a 3rd service pack.

I see what you mean, But in a way all versions have been unfinished. I want them unfinished. It gives me something to look forward to for the next version. Meanwhile I am able to really enjoy FSX. There is nothing that bothers me enough to call it a failed version in need of a 3rd service pack.

+1...'nuff said.

Hilarious how much you guys are dissecting the video, I see a few white specks, I don't know if I would go as far as to call the birds?? No surprise if they had birds though since it's nothing new.

Hilarious how much you guys are dissecting the video, I see a few white specks, I don't know if I would go as far as to call the birds?? No surprise if they had birds though since it's nothing new.

:(

I understand, I was just saying that FSX was left unfinished DX10 preview and should have been fixed.Flight will not have backwards compatibility with FSX, it just does not make good business senses at all and I do have a lot of FSX add-ons myself, to me Flight will be what FSX should have been when completed and by that I mean a full working DX10 + all what Phil said should have happend including God's ray to take this example.Flight can use a lot of core (for everything) if they do it correctly, here is an old vid about it...

Yeah, I totally agree! But the only thing I hope for is a better SDK for those people who want their add-ons, at least they can have a better Flight add-on with some or more of the same features as another in FSX, but without having to use the same FSX files. Ill try to explain in English. :( I'm not going to pretend that I either make games for a living or even know my way around programming games, I don't. but I do know that its a good idea for add-on developers to save their work. If they have their work saved, without adapting it for FSX, just in the modelling stage (e.g. in the format of 3DMAX, I believe its called) then it will decrease the time taken for the same add-on (e.g. A PMDG aircraft?) by a big chunk, then all they may need to do is somehow transfer that to the tools needed to make a Flight add-on! That should cut down the time taken to create the product, should it not? Like I say I haven't got much knowledge of how the developers create their add-ons, I'm just using my logic. *EDIT* Can someone tell me why at 0:05 to 0:07 in the video, I spotted a shadow, that may be a cloud shadow? I don't know... I'll upload a snapshot and circle it, to show what I mean. Then see for yourself on the video (the higher quality one that has been re-uploaded :

) and tell me what you think?Jamie ♥

Yeah, I totally agree! But the only thing I hope for is a better SDK for those people who want their add-ons, at least they can have a better Flight add-on with some or more of the same features as another in FSX, but without having to use the same FSX files. Ill try to explain in English. :( I'm not going to pretend that I either make games for a living or even know my way around programming games, I don't. but I do know that its a good idea for add-on developers to save their work. If they have their work saved, without adapting it for FSX, just in the modelling stage (e.g. in the format of 3DMAX, I believe its called) then it will decrease the time taken for the same add-on (e.g. A PMDG aircraft?) by a big chunk, then all they may need to do is somehow transfer that to the tools needed to make a Flight add-on! That should cut down the time taken to create the product, should it not? Like I say I haven't got much knowledge of how the developers create their add-ons, I'm just using my logic. Jamie ♥

You're headed in the right direction...As long as a developer is smart, they incrementally save copies of their work at different stages of the development process. If you use 3DS Max, you save it as a .max file. If you use GMax, you save in the .gmax format. If you use FSDS (yuck!!!) then you save as .fsc. Flight will likely not support gmax anymore, but 3DS should be. It would just be a matter of the original creator updating their aircraft with the new 3DS tools provided in the SDK and exporting the final MDL file. (if the Flight team is still using the MDL format)

*EDIT* Can someone tell me why at 0:05 to 0:07 in the video, I spotted a shadow, that may be a cloud shadow? I don't know... I'll upload a snapshot and circle it, to show what I mean. Then see for yourself on the video (the higher quality one that has been re-uploaded :

) and tell me what you think?Jamie ♥

With the lighting on the cliff the way it is, I'd suspect that's just self shadowing of the terrain on itself that you are seeing. Nothing here screams cloud shadow, unless I'm missing something.

First, I can tell you WITHOUT A DOUBT IN MY MIND, that the FSX team and MS learned there lesson about the "magic screen shot" ordeal. It was not there fault. That screen shot was never ment to be released and was a target concept, not an actual screen shot. It was 1 screenshot out of how many? 1!!! Uno! Now, we have Flight that has released 20-30 screenshots, and MULTIPLE VIDEO's! Yet 1 screenshot from a previous product, and a previous team invalidates all of it? Give it a rest already! They KNOW they messed up, and they WONT do it again. You cant easly fake a video like a screenshot. It would take more budget to do that then just simply making it look THAT GOOD, and THATS A FACT.

Could you take it easy on the coffee please? I was just stating one of the reasons for my skepticism. Is it such a crime to be a skeptic? Besides, if you read the rest of my post I stated that I'm satisfied with FSX as it turned out. I also pointed out things that I like from the webisode videos. I also noted that I'd like to see fidelity improvements to MSFS than just creating a better visual experience.

With the lighting on the cliff the way it is, I'd suspect that's just self shadowing of the terrain on itself that you are seeing. Nothing here screams cloud shadow, unless I'm missing something.

It just seemed strange for the shadow to move like the way it did, unless there was some seismic activity because there was a fault line there.... I don't know, It just caught my eye. It shouldn't have moved much at all even if there were trees that were casting the shadow from on top of higher terrain, should it? (I know about the trees swaying, too. Awesome :D). Just noticed it is all :)Jamie ♥

It just seemed strange for the shadow to move like the way it did, unless there was some seismic activity because there was a fault line there.... I don't know, It just caught my eye. It shouldn't have moved much at all even if there were trees that were casting the shadow from on top of higher terrain, should it? (I know about the trees swaying, too. Awesome :D). Just noticed it is all :)Jamie ♥

After watching the video off of my hard drive rather than online, I did in fact see something move. Not sure what it is. Looks like maybe a little display issue with the terrain, it's shadowing, the trees, or the terrain shadows on the trees. Really interesting little thing you have spotted...:(

Could you take it easy on the coffee please?

Im just sick and tired of people constantly beating down on MS Flight with that FSX DX10 concept art, using that as a reason to doubt everything that comes out of MS.